Should mem stop posting for a while

[Bbucko]

I responded in a genreic way. I think a small mental health break is good for anybody.

I take them all the time.

 

[lafever]

Your a wise one Bbucko, maybe we can all take your advice.


lafever

 

[B_superlarge]

njqt466 wrote:

On the rare occassion that I have become aggressive or negative in a thread, it was a reaction AFTER I have been attacked.




In the thread below you crawled over me in a negative way for asking something that was a sincere post on my part. I did not ask it negatively and was not any way abusive to you when I asked it. You proceeded to assume all sorts of things about me (missing them all by a mile) applying names to me at will without even really knowing me. Others here have said they haven't noticed any trolling by me. You are quick with the troll word and that's a fact. My post was not an attack on you, but you became aggressive and negative. If you took it as an attack then you are also quick about that. Non pc questions are not auto attacks.
http://www.lpsg.org/women-s-issues/58662-is-average-considered-small.html#post962293

 

[Osiris]

njqt466 wrote:

On the rare occassion that I have become aggressive or negative in a thread, it was a reaction AFTER I have been attacked.



In the thread below you crawled over me in a negative way for asking something that was a sincere post on my part. I did not ask it negatively and was not any way abusive to you when I asked it. You proceeded to assume all sorts of things about me (missing them all by a mile) applying names to me at will without even really knowing me. Others here have said they haven't noticed any trolling by me. You are quick with the troll word and that's a fact. My post was not an attack on you, but you became aggressive and negative. If you took it as an attack then you are also quick about that. Non pc questions are not auto attacks.
http://www.lpsg.org/women-s-issues/58662-is-average-considered-small.html#post962293http://www.lpsg.org/women-s-issues/58662-is-average-considered-small.html#post962293

Unfortunately this happens too often. Something we could ALL learn to do:

1) Remember words on a screen do not reflect emotion. When in doubt, ask the poster before jumping to a conclusion.

2) Everyone's body of experience is different. Rather than think someone is being flip about a question, try to genuinely see if they are sincerely trying to understand a point or where someone is coming from.

3) Respect the community and it will respect you. All to often peolpe ostracize someone because they are repeatedly overly active to pounce on people or things. Tolerance is key here.

4) On the flip side, do not abuse the good graces and tolerance of the community, it cuold land you in a bad place.

Hopefully we all are adult enough to be wise with how we relate to each other in our community.

And NJ? can you pull the waste bins in from the curb already? :biggrin1: Just funnin' wit ya.

 

[ManlyBanisters]

MB, I don't think you thought before you posted, this time. I am not complaining agout anything inherent in the pic. I may be inconsistant, as may you, but no one's fate in this community is in my hands, as it is with Prep.

Yes, Prep's violation of the TOS is not relevent to the OP of the thread, nor is Arliss's behavior. Yes, I made two different points in one paragraph, what is supposed to be wrong with that? Did Prep's post add anything relevent to the OP, or was he taking the opportunity to jump in for reasons not related to the thread?

The pic is certainly unsexual to you and me and most, that is beside the point, the policy here is a total ban on any pic of any person under 18. The reason is the over zealous behavior and lack of judgement of Bush administration prosecutors.

The point is inconsistancy of application of rules. If Prep had been otherwise decent, he could reasonably have expected the courtesy of a PM in pointing his violation out.

I can't see anything in the ToS that means Prep's avatar is prohibited. I am unaware of a 'total ban on any pic of any person under 18'. If a mod or admin would care to correct me however...

I think you were grandstanding and you fucked up 'cause you got it wrong.

 

[AlteredEgo]

I'm going to have to agree with Ms. Bannnisters. And not only becasue I wanted to be Miss Piggy when I grew up.

The TOS says content may not be posted which identifies a person under the age of 18. If the person in Prep's photo were not 18, the photo would be a violation, because the visible face counts as identification. However, the person depicted in that photo is no longer under the age of 18. Don't you know who that is? Look closely.

 

[SpoiledPrincess]

I don't know if it's in the new ToS but in the old one there was something about no photos at all of anyone under 18, one incident I remember is a woman who posted a perfectly innocent photo of her with her son, a few of us told her to take it down because it violated the ToS.
Edit - we weren't being all up our own bums, it was in case some sickos felt inclined to leave weird comments on it.

 

[AlteredEgo]

It is not expressly prohibited by the language of the current TOS.

 

[SteveHd]

Deleted ... had mistakenly quoted "old" t-o-s.

 

[AlteredEgo]

No longer relevant.

 

[SpoiledPrincess]

Yeah but can't we burn him anyway

 

[AlteredEgo]

A roast? That might be fun. He's a good sport.

 

[lafever]

We`d have to get a coliseum for all the members, i`m sure they`re probly into the thousands. lol. Wouldn`t that be a hoot, i`m sure it would be all in fun though right? Just think if we had a convention.


lafever

 

[AlteredEgo]

Roasts are for fun. The guest of honor knows the jokes come from love. Myself, I'm not good at being funny on purpose. I'd rather be roasted than do the roasting. It's so easy to poke fun at a friend spontaneously, but if all of a sudden you have to do it...

Anyway. We've derailed this thread. *cracks whip* back on topic everyone. Supposedly, this thread was supposed to be funny. I'm not convinced. Seems mean. I'm no mem0101 fan, but this just doesn't seem nice at all. Not that mem0101 is such a nice guy himself.

 

[Osiris]

Roasts are for fun. The guest of honor knows the jokes come from love. Myself, I'm not good at being funny on purpose. I'd rather be roasted than do the roasting. It's so easy to poke fun at a friend spontaneously, but if all of a sudden you have to do it...

Anyway. We've derailed this thread. *cracks whip* back on topic everyone. Supposedly, this thread was supposed to be funny. I'm not convinced. Seems mean. I'm no mem0101 fan, but this just doesn't seem nice at all. Not that mem0101 is such a nice guy himself.

There is some confusion as to whether this started mean sprited or not, but the differences were patched and people started to have fun with it.

Does that help?

 

[Principessa]

I'm going to have to agree with Ms. Bannnisters. And not only becasue I wanted to be Miss Piggy when I grew up.

The TOS says content may not be posted which identifies a person under the age of 18. If the person in Prep's photo were not 18, the photo would be a violation, because the visible face counts as identification. However, the person depicted in that photo is no longer under the age of 18. Don't you know who that is? I knew who it was immediately, when he first posted it about 3 weeks ago and I am amazed people are upset by it. Look closely.

:18: Oh for criminys sakes his name is Carl Switzer, a.k.a. Alfalfa of the Our Gang/Little Rascals series. Carl Dean "Alfalfa" Switzer (B:August 7, 1927 – D:January 21, 1959) was an Americanchild actor, professional dog breeder and expert hunting guide, most notable for appearing in the Our Gang short subjects series as Alfalfa, one of the series' most popular and best-remembered characters.

Talk about a silly internet beef, y'all are upset about a picture of a man who has been dead for almost 50 years! :biggrin1: :slomo:

 

[kalipygian]

The person has to have been 18 at the time the photo was taken, their present age is not relevent.

In the matter of banning other members, Prep has publicly insisted on an absolute and rigid rules are the rules policy. Everything is automatic, and there is no inconsistancy, or mitigating circumstances. Otherwise, he would get more sympathy.

Certainly there is nothing objectionable inherent in the avatar pic, but it is clearly a violation of the policy.

 

[AlteredEgo]

There is some confusion as to whether this started mean sprited or not, but the differences were patched and people started to have fun with it.

Does that help?

Oh yes. You know, I'd forgotten. I should have realized there was a reason I'd not made that statement earlier. LOL Perhaps it's time for my own mental break. :biggrin1:

 

[AlteredEgo]

The person has to have been 18 at the time the photo was taken, their present age is not relevent.

You're making things up. Stick to what the language says.

In the matter of banning other members, Prep has publicly insisted on an absolute and rigid rules are the rules policy. Everything is automatic, and there is no inconsistancy, or mitigating circumstances. Otherwise, he would get more sympathy.

Certainly there is nothing objectionable inherent in the avatar pic, but it is clearly a violation of the policy.

It's a good thing you're no attorney. Unless you are. Then it's just a good thing you're not MY attorney. :biggrin1:

 

[ManiacalMadMan]

The person has to have been 18 at the time the photo was taken, their present age is not relevent.

In the matter of banning other members, Prep has publicly insisted on an absolute and rigid rules are the rules policy. Everything is automatic, and there is no inconsistancy, or mitigating circumstances. Otherwise, he would get more sympathy.

Certainly there is nothing objectionable inherent in the avatar pic, but it is clearly a violation of the policy.

You're making things up. Stick to what the language says.

Here it is from the current TOS:

5.By submitting content to LPSG, you grant us an irrevocable, non-exclusive license to display the content. You represent that the content identifies no people under the age of 18, and that you are legally qualified to grant us this license.

The direct implication being that the person was not under 18 at the time the photo was taken.